I've been going down the "well actually Bukharin was pretty damn based" route lately and I really like his take on Historical Materialism and his ideas about equilibrium. Deng and Xi come from that general route right? You have recs for their writings?
im asking this in good faith (and i agree with your post), what do you make of china's "support" of israel and of philippines against mlms there? i know damn well china's "support" of israel is not comparable to america's though.
Specifically, I think Revolution of Everyday Life by Vaneigm is the text most beneficial to Leninist. It engages with the question of revolutionary strategy in a way that is based on a real revolutionary moment, but comes from a different philosophical starting place.
We'll that and thinking that blindly saying that china and the ussr are good while also being unscientific in your analysis doesn't make you a lenninst. it makes you the walking stereo type of a 'ML' people refer to when they call lenninists tankies. This is a great discredit to the entire ideological framework of dialectic materialism and historic materialism.
Yes they are good. But why stress that they aren't perfect? This is an unscientific benchmark to bring into the conversation, and part of the greater issues at play.
A solid answer. But why even raise the concept of perfection to begin with - instead of emphasizing the good they've done navigating contradiction and maintaining their exsitance as a socialist state. To initially phrase that as being 'imperfect' seems to me to bring the readers attention to comparing socialist states against the utopian ideal, instead of promoting it's material strengths.
deleted by creator
The Xi part is debatable, but the rest is based.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That's a good attitude but you should still give some of Deng and Xi's writings a shot. I think their theories are consistent with Marxism.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I've been going down the "well actually Bukharin was pretty damn based" route lately and I really like his take on Historical Materialism and his ideas about equilibrium. Deng and Xi come from that general route right? You have recs for their writings?
I've been slowly reading through Deng's selected works, ignoring some that seem too niche.
In particular:
Integrate Marxism-Leninism With the Concrete Conditions of China
Hold High the Banner of Mao Zedong Thought and Adhere to the Principle of Seeking Truth From Facts
Adhere to the Principle “To Each According to His Work”
We Can Develop A Market Economy Under Socialism
To Build Socialism We Must First Develop the Productive Forces
As for Xi, the Governance of China is the way to go. The third volume was just published.
Not sure about Bukharin's relationship to SwCC. I don't remember seeing him cited, at least.
Dope thanks.
Bukharin could probably be somewhat summed up with just the sentence "To Build Socialism We Must First Develop the Productive Forces"
This is a good take
im asking this in good faith (and i agree with your post), what do you make of china's "support" of israel and of philippines against mlms there? i know damn well china's "support" of israel is not comparable to america's though.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Xi is temporary - Juche is forever
Specifically, I think Revolution of Everyday Life by Vaneigm is the text most beneficial to Leninist. It engages with the question of revolutionary strategy in a way that is based on a real revolutionary moment, but comes from a different philosophical starting place.
Replying to this to come back to later.
Beatnik, you have no cred as an ML
deleted by creator
We'll that and thinking that blindly saying that china and the ussr are good while also being unscientific in your analysis doesn't make you a lenninst. it makes you the walking stereo type of a 'ML' people refer to when they call lenninists tankies. This is a great discredit to the entire ideological framework of dialectic materialism and historic materialism.
deleted by creator
Yes they are good. But why stress that they aren't perfect? This is an unscientific benchmark to bring into the conversation, and part of the greater issues at play.
deleted by creator
A solid answer. But why even raise the concept of perfection to begin with - instead of emphasizing the good they've done navigating contradiction and maintaining their exsitance as a socialist state. To initially phrase that as being 'imperfect' seems to me to bring the readers attention to comparing socialist states against the utopian ideal, instead of promoting it's material strengths.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Must be fun not to have to take things seriously.
deleted by creator